An email from Amazon to customers who have preordered Grand Theft Auto V says the console edition of the open world action sequel is due on March 26, 2013, reports Guru3D, where they reproduce the mail showing a March 27th delivery date. This is unconfirmed, and historically release dates revealed by retailers have been a mixed bag in terms of accuracy, though it bears noting that that date would fit the game's previously announced spring release window. They also say "The PC version is still scheduled a few month [sic] later," though there is no indication of where that tidbit originated. Thanks HARDOCP.

Orphic Resonance wrote on Jan 1, 2013, 10:43:i dont know if this has anything to do with LA Noire performance issues... but one thing that was weird as shit to me was how Dead Island gets easily 15fps more by using a gamepad instead of the mouse... like there is some kind of really shitty code handling the tracking for it

I noticed with GTAIV that it seemed much smoother when using a gamepad, which is because they smooth the movement and optimise loading around it. I don't think it actually performs any better, it just helps mask the framerate drops.

AC3 has issues on the 360 as well. But my biggest annoyance (and they use it in Far Cry 3 as well) is how the level of detail uses a 'materializing in' effect with triangles. I know it's a new or upgraded engine, but tech wise it seems like a step back from the previous games.

Using a steering wheel on a Burnout game is like using the Space Shuttle controls to fly a kite.

As you all probably know - I will buy it on console, then if it ever comes out on PC, I will buy on that too. I wish the would treat us better, but the larger base is the console. Lowest common denominator....

I dunno, AC3 runs like shit on my PS3. Not game-breakingly bad like Dark Souls, but low framerates in straight-up action games like sCreed and GTA are deal breakers. Red Dead at least avoided the issue altogether by being set in a barren desert.

Orphic Resonance wrote on Jan 1, 2013, 10:43:i dont know if this has anything to do with LA Noire performance issues... but one thing that was weird as shit to me was how Dead Island gets easily 15fps more by using a gamepad instead of the mouse... like there is some kind of really shitty code handling the tracking for it

I noticed with GTAIV that it seemed much smoother when using a gamepad, which is because they smooth the movement and optimise loading around it. I don't think it actually performs any better, it just helps mask the framerate drops.

i dont know if this has anything to do with LA Noire performance issues... but one thing that was weird as shit to me was how Dead Island gets easily 15fps more by using a gamepad instead of the mouse... like there is some kind of really shitty code handling the tracking for it

really really wacky shit.. its a noticeable difference too - its not negligible

As you all probably know - I will buy it on console, then if it ever comes out on PC, I will buy on that too. I wish the would treat us better, but the larger base is the console. Lowest common denominator....

GTA 5 will be just another console port that will be poorly optimised and fps capped at console rates. Maybe I would buy it when its a bargin basement item that is on sale, other than that there is no reason to buy GTA5 for the PC..

LA Noire was very poorly optimized and the framerate was capped at 30 FPS. Even with the cap, there were often times where it would drop below 30 and changing the detail settings made little to no difference in terms of performance or visuals. Also, the M/KB controls were not well-implemented.

GTA4, like LA Noire, was horribly optimized. Just ran like utter trash and didn't even look very good (the shadows were just as low-res as in the console versions). With modern hardware, you can brute force your way past the lousy optimization but that kind of defeats the whole point of optimizing in the first place.

As for GTA5, I see no reason why it won't eventually make it to PC. Every GTA game (except for that handheld one) has been released on PC. The PC version has always been announced and released long after the console versions since GTA3. GTA5 PC will probably be announced a few months after the console versions are released. Hopefully it's a solid port like MP3 and not GTA4 or LA Noire.

The Half Elf wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 19:14:The problem with Watch Dogs is Far Cry 3. What was shown at E3 in Far Cry 3 was nothing (at least visually) compared to the release version.

As for GTA 4, I will agree that Rockstar's Club and GFWL was a mess, but if you look at all the extra settings that the PC version got over the consoles I don't see how it's a shitty port.

Also how is LA Noire a shitty port as well? Looks good, plays good, just lacks multiplayer and side things to do in the game.

\

It's a shitty port because you can take all of those fancy graphics settings, and set it at the lowest setting, and the game will show it isn't using a fraction of your memory, and you load up a game and it still plays like a slideshow from Assville.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 20:28:Rockstar treats PC gamers with contempt, so they absolutely deserve the criticism I have directed at them. There may be worse companies but that's like ranking serial killers by their depravity when they're all fucking sickos.

SectorEffector wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 17:22:Reread most of that and tell me how you didn't just agree with me at the end but you frosted your response with your tidbits with Max payne 3. Who gives a fuck about the in game videos, seriously. As long as they aren't 320x240 bink's then I could care less. ESP when we are arguing the engine being optimized.. not whether or not the cinematics lead wants to push that event off on to a prerendered vid or not.

The videos were rendered at console level quality, with low resolution textures, no anti-aliasing and were heavily compressed. It was incredibly jarring going from 2560x1600 maxed out to ultra-shitty console quality and it soured the entire experience for me - especially considering that the game was 30GB in size. There simply was no excuse for such low quality videos, especially when they'd have looked great rendered in-game (something easily possible on PC).

SectorEffector wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 17:22:Also please let me know if you have any evidence that the PC version is being worked on or not being worked on right now. ( we know there is a year delay between releases, but don't assume they have NOBODY on it right now. )

They've publicly stated that there is no PC release currently planned, so your assumption goes against what Rockstar has said publicly.

SectorEffector wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 17:22:BTW La Noire and Max Payne were fine with me. Not a moment passed where I was thinking about how shitty the port was.

You thought LA Noire was an acceptable port? For starters it was limited to 30fps, which is absolutely unacceptable. And the graphics looked like ass. MP3 looked decent but there were issues with the gameplay and the FMV; it wasn't terrible but it could have been a lot better.

SectorEffector wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 17:22:You should direct your hate to a couple other companies who don't just crap on the PC, they downright make PR statements assaulting the platform.

Rockstar treats PC gamers with contempt, so they absolutely deserve the criticism I have directed at them. There may be worse companies but that's like ranking serial killers by their depravity when they're all fucking sickos.

theyarecomingforyou wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 15:09:everything shown for GTAV is a mess of low polygon models, low resolution textures and poor quality lighting and they won't show any gameplay videos.

Well, that's all that will run on the consoles. In order to get the game to play on 47 year old hardware, they have to cut corners somewhere. There's always the chance that they'd release some slightly better looking stuff for a PC version. (if it exists.)

If Rockstar cared about PC gamers

Why would Rockstar care about PC gamers? GTA, GTA2 and GTA:London sold like half a million copies combined. GTA4 by itself sold 22+ million copies on the consoles alone.

I'm all for bitching at a developer when they make it big on the PC and then go console-only (like Epic), but I'm not sure that's really a valid argument for Rockstar. They didn't make it big until GTA3, and that was a console game. Everything they've done since then has been console-only or at least console primary.

SectorEffector wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 13:50:Or it will turn out like Max Payne 3.... which was running silky smooth and looking very, VERY good. It still had that stupid extra bit of bloat for logging in and stats, but that's easily overlooked when it runs perfect.

Did you play Max Payne 3? Same engine, and it seemed to me like it was much more optimized engine wise then GTA IV was.

Firstly, Max Payne 3 for PC was developed simultaneously with the console version - that isn't the case with GTAV. Secondly, the environments were much smaller. Thirdly, the in-game videos were shockingly low quality - absolutely disgusting for a modern game, especially when they were used so extensively. And the gameplay was really weak, which was a criticism I had of GTAIV as well. Also, the media put out for MP3 actually looked decent and Rockstar was happy to show off gameplay; everything shown for GTAV is a mess of low polygon models, low resolution textures and poor quality lighting and they won't show any gameplay videos. Obviously MP3 was a better port than GTAIV but it certainly wasn't up to the standards set by games like Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2 or Arkham City.

Don't forget that it was Rockstar that ported LA Noire to PC, which was a technical disaster. I appreciate that they took over from another developer, so I don't hold them entirely responsible, but even so it was in a pretty disgusting state.

If Rockstar cared about PC gamers then they'd do a simultaneous release, like they did with MP3. They're too busy enjoying cocaine parties thrown by Microsoft to give a shit about integrity.

Reread most of that and tell me how you didn't just agree with me at the end but you frosted your response with your tidbits with Max payne 3. Who gives a fuck about the in game videos, seriously. As long as they aren't 320x240 bink's then I could care less. ESP when we are arguing the engine being optimized.. not whether or not the cinematics lead wants to push that event off on to a prerendered vid or not.

Also please let me know if you have any evidence that the PC version is being worked on or not being worked on right now. ( we know there is a year delay between releases, but don't assume they have NOBODY on it right now. )

BTW La Noire and Max Payne were fine with me. Not a moment passed where I was thinking about how shitty the port was. (im sure someone will tell me how unperceptive I am for that )

Yes GTA IV was a shit port, but after Max Payne 3, I have good faith.

You should direct your hate to a couple other companies who don't just crap on the PC, they downright make PR statements assaulting the platform.

SectorEffector wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 13:50:Or it will turn out like Max Payne 3.... which was running silky smooth and looking very, VERY good. It still had that stupid extra bit of bloat for logging in and stats, but that's easily overlooked when it runs perfect.

Did you play Max Payne 3? Same engine, and it seemed to me like it was much more optimized engine wise then GTA IV was.

Firstly, Max Payne 3 for PC was developed simultaneously with the console version - that isn't the case with GTAV. Secondly, the environments were much smaller. Thirdly, the in-game videos were shockingly low quality - absolutely disgusting for a modern game, especially when they were used so extensively. And the gameplay was really weak, which was a criticism I had of GTAIV as well. Also, the media put out for MP3 actually looked decent and Rockstar was happy to show off gameplay; everything shown for GTAV is a mess of low polygon models, low resolution textures and poor quality lighting and they won't show any gameplay videos. Obviously MP3 was a better port than GTAIV but it certainly wasn't up to the standards set by games like Far Cry 3, Borderlands 2 or Arkham City.

Don't forget that it was Rockstar that ported LA Noire to PC, which was a technical disaster. I appreciate that they took over from another developer, so I don't hold them entirely responsible, but even so it was in a pretty disgusting state.

If Rockstar cared about PC gamers then they'd do a simultaneous release, like they did with MP3. They're too busy enjoying cocaine parties thrown by Microsoft to give a shit about integrity.

March release makes sense since they don't have to do much graphically to create this for current gen consoles.

SectorEffector wrote on Dec 31, 2012, 13:50:Where the fuck is RDR for PC....

Seriously give up on that. RDR was mostly riding around grinding pelts out of wild animals. It was good but certainly not the greatest thing for PC gamers to miss out on. I still don't quite get the hype surrounding it. I made it half way before getting bored.